Now, Sherlock‘s co-creator Mark Gatiss has responded to the article – in a unique way. He sent a poem into the newspaper, explaining how he and Steven Moffat aren’t changing the character. Have a read of it below:

Here is a critic who says with low blow
Sherlock’s no brain-box but become double-O.
Says the Baker St boy is no man of action –
whilst ignoring the stories that could have put him in traction.

The Solitary Cyclist sees boxing on show,
The Gloria Scott and The Sign of the Fo’
The Empty House too sees a mention, in time, of Mathews,
who knocked out poor Sherlock’s canine.

As for arts martial, there’s surely a clue
in the misspelled wrestle Doyle called baritsu.
In hurling Moriarty over the torrent
did Sherlock find violence strange and abhorrent?

In shooting down pygmies and Hounds from hell
Did Sherlock on Victorian niceties dwell?
When Gruner’s men got him was Holmes quite compliant
Or did he give good account for The Illustrious Client?

There’s no need to invoke in yarns that still thrill,
Her Majesty’s Secret Servant with licence to kill
From Rathbone through Brett to Cumberbatch dandy
With his fists Mr Holmes has always been handy.

Related

9 thoughts on “Mark Gatiss Responds To Sherlock Critics – With a Poem”

The action is not the problem. We know Holmes was a boxer, fencing expert, etc. The problem is the lack of plot and the veering away from the essence of the Holmes stories. If I had tuned in randomly without having seen any Sherlock episodes before, I would never in a million years have thought what I was watching last Sunday was meant to be a Holmes and Watson story. Sorry. It was melodramatic trash, action or not. Stick to Doyle more, like you did in the first 2 seasons.

Anyone who has trained in martial arts will recognize the rank certificate hanging above Sherlock’s bed. I thought that was a great touch and the best way to bring in Doyle’s description of Holmes as a trained martial artist.

When someone has to use 2 accounts to make the same post says a lot 😦 The show HAS lost its way, it used to be about the quips, the looks, the nods, the KNOWING of Sherlock, the very clever interpretation of Doyles original stories.
It lost that when it started thinking it had to pander to US audiences DIRECTLY and other countries too. The fact the criticism is coming mostly from brits and the `defenders` of it are coming from abroad proves this.. oh well, lets see how they do on episode 2 eh?